As ACTA withers, the US government learns that copyright maximalism won't work.

Share this story

Harold Feld is a senior vice president of Public Knowledge, a Washington, DC advocacy group dedicated to "the openness of the Internet and the public's access to knowledge." The article originally appeared on Wetmachine, a group blog on telecom policy, software, science, technology, and writing. The views expressed here do not necessarily represent those of Ars Technica.

Harold Feld, Senior VP of Public Knowledge

Well, it's been a fun week on the international trade agreement front. Monday began yet another negotiating round for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement, this time in San Diego. To the amazement of everyone, the US Trade Representative (USTR) announced on July 3 it would now include a provision in the intellectual property (IP) chapter recognizing the importance of "limitations and exceptions" to copyright and embracing the international 3-part test for what constitutes suitable limitations and exceptions. (For those not familiar with this term of art, "limitations and exceptions" are things like Fair Use and First Sale Doctrine in the United States. As the name implies, limitations and exceptions to copyright limit the rights of the copyright holder and create exceptions to the general rule against copying without permission.)

It is difficult to convey to people who don’t routinely deal with USTR and the copyright maximalists that dominate trade negotiations just how stunning a turnaround this is, given the fairly well-established limitations and exceptions in US law and the fact that—as USTR acknowledged in its announcement—the three-part test for what constitutes suitable limitations and exceptions is already well-established and incorporated into international law. Indeed, given all this, the incredible thing is that this is, as USTR acknowledges, the first time USTR has included any explicit reference to limitations and exceptions. In addition, as my colleague Rashmi Rangnath points out over at the Public Knowledge blog, while this is a positive step for USTR, we have not seen the new draft TPP text, so the actual implementation of these principles in the TPP draft could still be a major step backward from existing US law.

Let me use an analogy to explain why this is, nevertheless, a big deal. For USTR to publicly embrace limitations and exceptions as "an important part of the copyright ecosystem" is the equivalent of The Pope saying: "in some cases, birth control is a good thing because it allows married couples to have sex without procreation, deepening their emotional bond with one another."

What happened? ACTA

So even if this is just public posturing, it marks a dramatic departure from the USTR’s traditional position—which is to avoid the entire subject of limitations and exceptions as much as possible while implying, without actually saying that the very existence of the concept of "limitations and exceptions to copyright" makes the universe a less perfect place.

Such things do not happen by chance. [US Trade Representative] Ron Kirk did not wake up Tuesday morning July 3 and say, "I had a dream of a world with no limitations and exceptions to copyright and learned a Very Important Lesson In Life." Mind you, I am not questioning the sincerity of USTR; this is about shaping policy, not building a relationship or going on a date. I am totally down with people doing the right thing for the wrong reason. But success also depends on understanding why USTR felt compelled to change their public position.

Worse, many US industries outside of Hollywood and the recording industry wanted ACTA to actually fight real counterfeiting. So not only did everyone end up wasting time on a treaty no one wants to sign anymore, businesses hoping to use the agreement to fight the folks making warehouses full of fake Rolex watches and such are totally out of luck. And why? Because the MPAA/RIAA insisted ACTA needed lots of crazy stuff on intellectual property, and no one wanted to say no to the MPAA/RIAA. Oh, if only some wise public interest advocate had warned them that including all this crazy stuff around IP in ACTA put getting a real trade agreement to address real counterfeiting at risk! Oh wait...

True, ACTA might have slipped through without much public notice or discussion, like nearly every other international trade agreement, but for the consciousness raising exercise that was the fight against SOPA. Europeans and others who thought copyright maximalism was a uniquely American disease suddenly took an interest in what their own governments were doing and experienced a collective freak out. Critically, folks got quite upset that ACTA would apparently require them to change their copyright laws in ways they regarded as inimical to recognized limitations and exceptions and that therefore violated fundamental human rights principles. The usual blandishments and arrogant dismissals of these criticisms by ACTA supporters as ill-informed, driven by pirates and profiteers such as Google, and necessary to protect poor starving artists failed to soothe the opposition. To the contrary, it only aroused further fury. As a result, the EU vote rejecting ACTA was one of the most lopsided votes in its history (478-39).

USTR gets a clue

All of this, combined with new objections to the TPP process by a growing number of Congressmen, has apparently prompted USTR to get a clue. As ACTA’s resounding rejection proves, the old playbook of whittling away limitations and exceptions to copyright both here and abroad by refusing to acknowledge their existence or importance just doesn’t cut it in a post-SOPA world. At a minimum, international agreements must at least pay lip service to the vital role of limitations and exceptions in "the copyright ecosystem." (Of course, the actual language of the treaty might still undermine limitations and exceptions in practice while pretending to acknowledge their importance on the surface.)

In addition, the recognized international 3-part test USTR refers to is pretty vague, since it constitutes the minimum standard that all countries must acknowledge (even if they’d rather not) under accepted norms of international law. So a treaty provision can be totally compliant with the international 3-part test and still represent a major step forward for copyright maximalism by reducing existing limitations and exceptions as incorporated in the law of the United States and many other countries.

Mind you, despite the fact that this acknowledgement does not give up much practical ground, MPAA and RIAA are reportedly furious with the announcement and latest draft of the TPP IP chapter. Since selected industry representatives get full access to the proposed text, it may well be that the new text contains some real policy shifts as well as a change in rhetoric. But I suspect the fury of the MPAA and RIAA comes from the fact that they appear to believe that Wikipedia and Google are responsible for all this, and no real world evidence will tell them otherwise. As a result, they regard even a rhetorical shift by USTR acknowledging the importance of limitations and exceptions as a betrayal and as caving in to "Big Knowledge" bullies like Wikipedia.

Also, even if USTR turns out to be merely paying lip service to the concept, MPAA/RIAA have definitely lost a major round here. To have limitations and exceptions openly in the room and acknowledged as a critical element in any trade agreement rather than treated as something questionable to be ignored changes the tenor of negotiations and makes it harder for the IP Mafia to push for unilateral expansion of copyright at the continuing expense of long-established limitations and exceptions. For a lobby unused to losing, this change in position from a previously rock-solid ally—no matter how politically necessary in the short-term—represents another galling lose in a year marked by several unanticipated reversals.

How should opponents of copyright maximalism respond?

I have many rules of advocacy. One is: "Always make it easy for other people to agree with you." This is doubly true when I believe the other side is making the concession grudgingly. So the first response is to thank USTR and acknowledge its significant shift in position. The second step is to help USTR move down the path of wisdom by refining the text—aware that the IP Mafia will do everything in its power to reverse course and shift USTR back to its traditional position.

Keep in mind that the majority of people working for USTR don’t like to waste effort any more than the rest of us, and the realization that a significant portion of the rest of the world may reject whatever final deal negotiators agree to if it goes too far on copyright is no doubt causing many to rethink their positions. In addition, USTR has many other industries it services besides Hollywood. They need trade agreements—and USTR is required to negotiate these. The Hollywood crazy train on intellectual property enforcement now very visibly threatens the ability to get future trade agreements ratified by Congress or by foreign governments. The manufacturing sector, the retail sector, and others that have until now tolerated Hollywood’s demands in the interest of maintaining a united industry front will not sacrifice their own international trade interests for the entertainment industry—and will push USTR to negotiate agreements that actually have a chance at ratification.

All this creates a positive opportunity going forward. For the first time, civil society has something USTR needs—an ability to legitimize the treaty text. The global lobbying muscle of the MPAA/RIAA is no longer enough. While that does not make civil society an equal in the negotiations by any stretch of the imagination, it is a much stronger bargaining position than ever before.

This is not to say that people long convinced of the rightness of copyright maximalism (which rejects limitations and exceptions) will change their minds on the merits. Although this may come too, in time. But policy is not about getting people to do the right thing for the right reasons, it is about getting them to do the right thing for their own reasons. In this case, USTR has excellent reasons to shift position and bring civil society more strongly into the mix. The job for civil society is continuing to enhance the value of what we offer by keeping the pressure on for substantive language that genuinely embraces existing limitations and exceptions. MPAA/RIAA have excellent incentive for this as well, although I expect them to take much longer to recognize this.

All in all, 2012 continues to be a landmark year for intellectual property policy. The anti-SOPA campaign has genuinely changed the way in which IP policy gets negotiated, rather than fading away as memory of the legislation recedes. No, that doesn’t mean everything is now hunky-dory and we now go home. But did anyone ever think it would? What the ACTA defeat in Europe and the pressure on USTR to shift position show is that the campaign to prevent the further erosion of free expression in the name of copyright maximalism has staying power. It now falls to all of us to ensure that we keep moving things in the right direction.

So glad for this. The SOPA battle was huge, but I've been worried that people would think that the fight was over after that and would get complacent again. I have hope that this means otherwise, and that a post-SOPA world really is a changed one.

It's worth considering one of the most recent cases of US copyright law exports, Canada, which might help shake down the optimism a little bit.

Our government recently passed a new copyright bill, C-11 (it has received royal assent, but hasn't yet been formally read into the books--effectively, it is now certain to become law, but still has a minor technical step until the law actually applies). On the face of it, this new bill has promising aspects: among other things, it enlarges copyright limitations by explicitly allowing time-shifting, format-shifting, creative mashups, and allowing educational use as a justification for fair dealing (our nomenclature for fair use). All great examples of copyright exceptions.

But, while one hand giveth, the other taketh: all of the fair dealing limitations to copyright (both new and old) evaporate entirely if the original work has any sort of digital protection mechanism. Despite major pleading by just about everyone not affiliated with the MPAA or RIAA, the government held fast to not adding any connection between digital lock breaking and infringement. If you break a digital lock, you are in violation of the new copyright law, even if the purpose of breaking said lock falls entirely within fair use.

So call me skeptical: it seems as though, rather than being a beacon of a new era of USTR pro-consumer copyright regime changes, this is more likely a change in policy designed to look more consumer-friendly on copyright without actually being so. The new Canadian law is likely viewed as a model to be exported to other countries: enact laws that grant a bunch of new copyright "limitations," but make sure those limitations don't actually apply to Hollywood.

I agree with the author that we should work with the USTR by applying pressure in the form of constructive proposals. One thing that strikes me as very undesirable is the heavy-handedness of the law when it comes to file sharers (The UK kid that gets extradited to the US, the way MegaUpload was handled, etc.). It would be good if the TPP makes an explicit distinction between counterfeiting and file sharing, with the former treated under criminal law, and the latter under civil law. I believe this is already the way it is in most western countries, but some countries could do with a reminder.

It's worth considering one of the most recent cases of US copyright law exports, Canada, which might help shake down the optimism a little bit.

Our government recently passed a new copyright bill, C-11 (it has received royal assent, but hasn't yet been formally read into the books--effectively, it is now certain to become law, but still has a minor technical step until the law actually applies). On the face of it, this new bill has promising aspects: among other things, it enlarges copyright limitations by explicitly allowing time-shifting, format-shifting, creative mashups, and allowing educational use as a justification for fair dealing (our nomenclature for fair use). All great examples of copyright exceptions.

But, while one hand giveth, the other taketh: all of the fair dealing limitations to copyright (both new and old) evaporate entirely if the original work has any sort of digital protection mechanism. Despite major pleading by just about everyone not affiliated with the MPAA or RIAA, the government held fast to not adding any connection between digital lock breaking and infringement. If you break a digital lock, you are in violation of the new copyright law, even if the purpose of breaking said lock falls entirely within fair use.

So call me skeptical: it seems as though, rather than being a beacon of a new era of USTR pro-consumer copyright regime changes, this is more likely a change in policy designed to look more consumer-friendly on copyright without actually being so. The new Canadian law is likely viewed as a model to be exported to other countries: enact laws that grant a bunch of new copyright "limitations," but make sure those limitations don't actually apply to Hollywood.

Sounds like a Canadian DMCA to me. People in the US have been railing for significantly more exception if not a complete repeal of the DMCA. A bad law that does nothing but provide for artificial scarcity. Even RIAA and MPAA trade reps have said the use of DRM measures are not for protection from piracy, but as new business models to create more products from the same media under the umbrella of the DMCA.

Sounds like a Canadian DMCA to me. People in the US have been railing for significantly more exception if not a complete repeal of the DMCA. A bad law that does nothing but provide for artificial scarcity. Even RIAA and MPAA trade reps have said the use of DRM measures are not for protection from piracy, but as new business models to create more products from the same media under the umbrella of the DMCA.

Essentially, yes, except it is more strict: in the US under the DMCA there are, if I recall correctly, specific exceptions to the anti-circumvention rules, with a committee updating the exceptions every few years (Wikipedia tells me every 3 years). In Canada, under this new law, there are no exceptions to circumvention allowed at all under any circumstance.

I think there needs to be this sort of concession from the industry. Don't get me wrong, I'm actually staunchly anti-piracy, and fully in favor of copyright as a valid part of our digital landscape...but this is really the only way forward.

I'm all for the rule of law-- and copyright infringement is illegal because it can cause harm. So too, however, can the unmitigated pushing of poor legislation. Bad laws written to protect the old ways against the new are going to fail, mostly because the "new way" includes access to a firehose of information, including all the details of trade agreements and legislation.

Piracy hurts the industry. But the industry also hurts itself much more through this sort of negative publicity. Trying to force overly tight regulations onto the world in an effort to stop people who download is ridiculous. Forcing the people who occasionally download, or who simply care about their digital rights (me) onto the same side as the pirates is a bad gambit. I'm happy to see the legislation fail-- even if I feel copyright infringement is a crime-- because this goes way too far to serve a narrow purpose.

Excellent column, glad Ars is not afraid to post things from other sites (with their permission of course), makes the whole site better for its readers, and saves Ars from trying to repeat what someone else has already said.

I have many rules of advocacy. One is: "Always make it easy for other people to agree with you."

I already am opposed to copyright maximalization, but the snide tone of this editorial makes it annoying for me to agree with this guy. I understand and basically agree with what he's saying but if he wants diplomats and politicians to listen maybe he needs to learn to phrase things in a less emotional way.

My major frustration is the *AA groups know their desires won't stand up to scrutiny. They have to hold other proposed treaties/legislation hostage to get their stuff passed.

It's insane that they can do that at all, and we need push-back. If they put their copyright proposals up on their own, and in the battle of ideas, they won out, then maybe I could understand them better, and accept it really is needed. But as it is now, they just keep trying to stealth it in, with tacit acknowledgement that they are intellectually bankrupt, and have to rely on shady tactics to get what they want.

My major frustration is the *AA groups know their desires won't stand up to scrutiny. They have to hold other proposed treaties/legislation hostage to get their stuff passed.

It's insane that they can do that at all, and we need push-back. If they put their copyright proposals up on their own, and in the battle of ideas, they won out, then maybe I could understand them better, and accept it really is needed. But as it is now, they just keep trying to stealth it in, with tacit acknowledgement that they are intellectually bankrupt, and have to rely on shady tactics to get what they want.

Well, starve the music and movie studios of money. Don't go to the theater, don't buy movies or music in stores or on-line, if you must do anything buy second hand so that no monies go to the people funding the trade groups pushing this garbage. If the studios lose enough money, the money funneled to the RIAA and MPAA will stop and the trade groups will collapse.

So the USTR acknowledges the reality that intellectual property law has inherent built-in limitations and we're supposed to be grateful for this courageous public pronouncement? Nope. If this really pans out then the USTR is simply doing his job instead of shilling for the copyright industries. If a USTR does something above and beyond his job THEN he gets kudos are warranted. But you don't get kudos just because you stop beating your wife.

the short term result is that the insistence on serving the interests of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) by trying to force copyright maximalism on other countries killed the treaty after about six years of negotiation. That’s a lot of wasted time and effort.

Well, starve the music and movie studios of money. Don't go to the theater, don't buy movies or music in stores or on-line, if you must do anything buy second hand so that no monies go to the people funding the trade groups pushing this garbage. If the studios lose enough money, the money funneled to the RIAA and MPAA will stop and the trade groups will collapse.

I did that for many years. My spending on movies and music dropped to a very small percentage of what it was. You know what I saw during that time? Everyone that cared about music and did that only killed off genres they liked, while teeny-bopper pop proliferated everywhere. The cure was worse than the disease.

I compromise and now use subscription services where I no longer have to buy anything individually, I just have to wait for Netflix and Zune to have a song/movie. To me, this is the best of both worlds. Both support indie creators, and neither force me to buy anything to see what I want (within limits, of course). This is the entertainment world I can support, and want to support. Me paying a small flat fee for universal access is not a new concept, and everyone benefits.

So the USTR acknowledges the reality that intellectual property law has inherent built-in limitations and we're supposed to be grateful for this courageous public pronouncement? Nope. If this really pans out then the USTR is simply doing his job instead of shilling for the copyright industries. If a USTR does something above and beyond his job THEN he gets kudos are warranted. But you don't get kudos just because you stop beating your wife.

Just an FYI, but constant praise is one of the easiest ways to promote change in people. It seems silly to have to praise someone for not beating his wife anymore, but if he stops because he likes the praise, you praise that man. Praise is free. If it means the USTR continues to do things I like, I'll praise them for the smallest concession in my favor.

Well, I think you *would* get kudos for that. The problem is that the USTR has said wife-beating is bad, but we don't know whether that means they will stop, or that they're going to start applying more makeup to make it less obvious.

It's worth considering one of the most recent cases of US copyright law exports, Canada, which might help shake down the optimism a little bit.

Our government recently passed a new copyright bill, C-11 (it has received royal assent, but hasn't yet been formally read into the books--effectively, it is now certain to become law, but still has a minor technical step until the law actually applies). On the face of it, this new bill has promising aspects: among other things, it enlarges copyright limitations by explicitly allowing time-shifting, format-shifting, creative mashups, and allowing educational use as a justification for fair dealing (our nomenclature for fair use). All great examples of copyright exceptions.

But, while one hand giveth, the other taketh: all of the fair dealing limitations to copyright (both new and old) evaporate entirely if the original work has any sort of digital protection mechanism. Despite major pleading by just about everyone not affiliated with the MPAA or RIAA, the government held fast to not adding any connection between digital lock breaking and infringement. If you break a digital lock, you are in violation of the new copyright law, even if the purpose of breaking said lock falls entirely within fair use.

So call me skeptical: it seems as though, rather than being a beacon of a new era of USTR pro-consumer copyright regime changes, this is more likely a change in policy designed to look more consumer-friendly on copyright without actually being so. The new Canadian law is likely viewed as a model to be exported to other countries: enact laws that grant a bunch of new copyright "limitations," but make sure those limitations don't actually apply to Hollywood.

Sounds like a Canadian DMCA to me. People in the US have been railing for significantly more exception if not a complete repeal of the DMCA. A bad law that does nothing but provide for artificial scarcity. Even RIAA and MPAA trade reps have said the use of DRM measures are not for protection from piracy, but as new business models to create more products from the same media under the umbrella of the DMCA.

It is Canadian DMCA for a bit. Quite frankly it pisses me off to no end that Harper bent over so far to take it from Hollywood. DRM is just a POS that only hurts everyone. It keeps costs up, screws over content purchasers, and does not prevent copying at all.

Quite frankly as far as copyright applies to IP, screw em all. The copyright contract has long been broken in the favour of corporations. So if it is broken then it should no longer be applied.

Quite frankly as far as copyright applies to IP, screw em all. The copyright contract has long been broken in the favour of corporations. So if it is broken then it should no longer be applied.

The new Canadian system actually goes quite far in expanding copyright towards individuals: the problem is, all that expansion (and more) gets taken away by simply adding a digital lock (even a technologically ineffective one is enough--e.g. DVD's CSS). Had C-11 actually linked circumvention to infringement—as the vast majority in the Conservative's "consultation" process strongly requested—it would have been quite a progressive, consumer-friendly copyright update. So you're right that, as it stands, it heavily favours corporations. Taking a longer-term view—or perhaps an optimistic view—it might be easier for a future (non-Conservative) government or court to tweak the law by linking circumvention to infringement, which would make it actually quite a decent copyright law.

Well, starve the music and movie studios of money. Don't go to the theater, don't buy movies or music in stores or on-line, if you must do anything buy second hand so that no monies go to the people funding the trade groups pushing this garbage. If the studios lose enough money, the money funneled to the RIAA and MPAA will stop and the trade groups will collapse.

I did that for many years. My spending on movies and music dropped to a very small percentage of what it was. You know what I saw during that time? Everyone that cared about music and did that only killed off genres they liked, while teeny-bopper pop proliferated everywhere. The cure was worse than the disease.

I agree. Music was at its best during my formative years, then took a steep dive right as I morphed into a jaded, cynical adult.

When the Granddaddy of copyright laws - the Statute of Anne came into existence, protection for authors was a mere 20 years.

Actually it was 14 years, with a possible extension of another 14.

ChickenHawk wrote:

I think copyright seriously needs to be rolled back to this level. If you can't make a reasonable return in 20 years, you need a new career, not new copyright laws.

But that doesn't really fix anything, you'd just get a bunch of big players lobbying to extend it again. The problem, and what has lead to most copyright extensions, is that those extensions have been allowed to be retroactive. If the 1998 CTEA had not retroactively extended existing copyright, it's unlikely that it would have had any support at all. So what you really need is to shorten copyright to a reasonable term (whether that is 14 or 20 or 28 or something else is certainly debatable) AND a way to bind government from allowing any future extensions to be retroactive.

I think copyright seriously needs to be rolled back to this level. If you can't make a reasonable return in 20 years, you need a new career, not new copyright laws.

But that doesn't really fix anything, you'd just get a bunch of big players lobbying to extend it again. The problem, and what has lead to most copyright extensions, is that those extensions have been allowed to be retroactive. If the 1998 CTEA had not retroactively extended existing copyright, it's unlikely that it would have had any support at all. So what you really need is to shorten copyright to a reasonable term (whether that is 14 or 20 or 28 or something else is certainly debatable) AND a way to bind government from allowing any future extensions to be retroactive.

And how exactly do you do that? What, you want a constitutional amendment saying that laws can't be retroactively applied to copywritten works? I don't see any way of phrasing that which isn't bad, narrow, or otherwise just problematic.

And how exactly do you do that? What, you want a constitutional amendment saying that laws can't be retroactively applied to copywritten works? I don't see any way of phrasing that which isn't bad, narrow, or otherwise just problematic.

You could have the duration be part of the amendment, with a rule saying all orphan works and works that fall out of copyright may never be re-copyrighted.

So what you really need is to shorten copyright to a reasonable term (whether that is 14 or 20 or 28 or something else is certainly debatable) AND a way to bind government from allowing any future extensions to be retroactive.

And how exactly do you do that? What, you want a constitutional amendment saying that laws can't be retroactively applied to copywritten works? I don't see any way of phrasing that which isn't bad, narrow, or otherwise just problematic.

How about a clause that grants Congress the power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Since a retroactive copyright extension cannot, in the absence of time travel, possibly "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", a retroactive extension by Congress seems to violate the Constitution. Sadly the US Supreme Court declined to see it that way in Eldred v. Ashcroft.

I think copyright seriously needs to be rolled back to this level. If you can't make a reasonable return in 20 years, you need a new career, not new copyright laws.

But that doesn't really fix anything, you'd just get a bunch of big players lobbying to extend it again. The problem, and what has lead to most copyright extensions, is that those extensions have been allowed to be retroactive. If the 1998 CTEA had not retroactively extended existing copyright, it's unlikely that it would have had any support at all. So what you really need is to shorten copyright to a reasonable term (whether that is 14 or 20 or 28 or something else is certainly debatable) AND a way to bind government from allowing any future extensions to be retroactive.

And how exactly do you do that? What, you want a constitutional amendment saying that laws can't be retroactively applied to copywritten works? I don't see any way of phrasing that which isn't bad, narrow, or otherwise just problematic.

Make the amendment to say that it only newly copyrighted work will be applied with the new copyright duration? There are people who are paid to work these things out. (Not lobbyists)

Well, starve the music and movie studios of money. Don't go to the theater, don't buy movies or music in stores or on-line, if you must do anything buy second hand so that no monies go to the people funding the trade groups pushing this garbage. If the studios lose enough money, the money funneled to the RIAA and MPAA will stop and the trade groups will collapse.

I did that for many years. My spending on movies and music dropped to a very small percentage of what it was. You know what I saw during that time? Everyone that cared about music and did that only killed off genres they liked, while teeny-bopper pop proliferated everywhere. The cure was worse than the disease.

I agree. Music was at its best during my formative years, then took a steep dive right as I morphed into a jaded, cynical adult.

It's totally not because most popular singers these days seems to rely VERY heavily on auto tune which gives them oddly robotic sounding vocal with absolutely no character what-so-ever.

Quite frankly it pisses me off to no end that Harper bent over so far to take it from Hollywood. DRM is just a POS that only hurts everyone. It keeps costs up, screws over content purchasers, and does not prevent copying at all.

I disagree. It merely inconviniences pirates rather than hurting them.

Quite frankly it pisses me off to no end that Harper bent over so far to take it from Hollywood. DRM is just a POS that only hurts everyone. It keeps costs up, screws over content purchasers, and does not prevent copying at all.

I disagree. It merely inconviniences pirates rather than hurting them.

I doubt it even does that. Like most pro-DRM schemes, it mostly inconveniences legitimate users (for instance, I can't legally play any of my legally-purchased DVDs anymore, because I use Linux, and the new law makes libcss2 illegal in Canada). The "pirates" will carry on as usual, offering the same, widely-compatible, easier to use, often higher quality versions of the content that they've offered all along.